About Me

Dr. Clyde Winters, has taught in the Chicago Public Schools for 36 years. He has taught Education and Linguistic Courses at Saint Xavier University-Chicago. As a teacher in the Chicago Public Schools Dr. Winters wrote State Standards in the 1990's for the Chicago Public School system and Common Core State Standards for Social Studies. He also wrote the 6th Grade World History Lesson Plans used in the CPS in 2000.

Thursday, August 26, 2010

There are a number of Sumerian seals that some researchers claim to relate to the Anunnaki, who came from the heaven to create man, and enslaved man to work in the mines. Although this is the opinion of these researchers the Sumerian seals they cite as evidence for this enslavement relate to the simple worship of the gods by the Sumerians. These seals were probably talisman meant to encourage the Sumerian people to reflect on their gods and do good.

In the above figure we see a number of signs . There are three figures. A number of signs are associated with the figures. The figures at the end of the seals have their hands made in the shape of the tu sign, and read i tu, “Send forth the libation”. The middle figure’s hand is shaped in sign of the i ta, and reads Send forth (his/the) Touch”.Lets read the seal from right to left. Sings to the far right of the seal reads: Me mi mi I i-ta mi ge i u u mi gu lu a a i-me, or “The diviner has much power from the diety to send forth. Send forth the character of the Diviner. Act to send forth amazement to nourish the oracle and sustain man. The strong Father sends forth the oracle.

After these signs we see the god (maybe Enlil) whose hand pointing skyward reads i tu ‘send forth the libation”. The other hand carries a beaded necklace. Below the necklace we see a figure seated on a throne on the back of an animal.

Next we see figure that resembles an arrow or spear seated on a base. This spear or arrow figure is made up of a number of signs. They read Pa ta u “Reveal the character of a powerful man”.

On the left side of the spear/arrow figure we see a number of sings beginning with a wave (zi ) like sign slightly above the head of the god. The wavy sign is zi and reads righteousness or ‘breath of life’.

The god’s hand points at the top of the spear. The other hand is changed in the i ta signs=Send forth (his/ the) touch”. Below this hand we see two columns of signs. There are three signs to the right Su a-i u and reads “Wisdom sprouts from the Father/Leader and amazement”.

There are five signs on the left side under the hand. They read Mi mi ta be ta, and reads “The phenomenal oracle to open up speech and entrust benefit ( for MAN/YOU)”.

Above the wazy line we see a figure that has a u symbol, above a circle between two boxes or logs, with a fan under the circular figure. The u symbol equals u, the box figures read bu mesh, the circle sign = ta and the fan below the circle is pa. This figure reads U bu mesh ta bu mesh pa, “The Powerful man supports the character of a super perfect Diviner and leader”.

It is important to note that when a sign is doubled, this represents reduplication or plural nature of the signs.

There are Proto-Sumerian signs behind the middle god, between the god at the far left of the seal. The First sign is a half-moon which reads u or “Gaze (at)”. The rest of signs reading from top to bottom are lu mi ta mi ta gun a lu mi mi i be. Tu mi i. This passage reads “ Gaze (at) the man of power. Open up the divine decree. Entrust benefit to human beings. Distribute the oracle’s divine decree to witness speech. Go forth to make a libation (at the ) oracle.

This seal is also relating to offering libation to the gods at an oracle. This oracle appears to speak to the supplicants.

In the above image we see the Sumerian sign of kingship which is represented by the figure which is star shaped and includes sixteen points. The dot reads li, and the line is i. In Sumerian li i “To become visible/shine”.

Next we see two gods. On the left we see a humano-fish figure. This god may represent the god Ea who was like a fish and is suppose to be the creator of man. The other god may be Enlil. The hands of the gods pointing to the log represent the signs, i ta, and reads “Send forth his Touch”.

Between the gods and above them we see a log shaped figure with a a number of lines. On the right hand side of the log we see two signs: a hook with a line under it. The hook is probably the u sign, the line is read i. The two signs would read u i, , “Witness amazement”.

In the Center of the log we see a dot (li), a half circle (a) under the dot and a fan like symbol (pa). Under the fan is a large half circle (a).These symbols read Li a pa A, or “Become visible a strong leader. The Father”.

At the end of log on the left hand side we see three signs a vertical line (i), with two horizontal lines (gu) between it and another vertical line. These signs read i gu i or “Become a visible witness to benefit man”.

Under the a sign, in the center of the seal we see a figure surrounded by the dot line symbol = li i ‘ Become visible”. The next sign is the u, “Powerful/Nourish”. Within the u sign we see repeatedly the dot (li) sign between two lines on either side gu. Li gu = “send forth sustenance”. These symbols probably read “Become visible a powerful (Leader/Fther) to send forth sustenance for mankind”.

Given the text on the seal, the figure on the log probably represents Anu, the sky Creator of all god.

These seals is telling man(kind) to offer a libation to Anu, to make this god a visible figure in their life.

To summarize, these seals relate to being good luck talisman reminding the bearer of the seals to worship their gods—not space travel.

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------What is the character of the soul among the Kametians, Sumerians, Olmecs and Dravidians. Forpurposes of this paper we will call the Sumerians,Olmecs and Dravidians Kushites, since the ancestors ofthese people lived in the Highland Areas of MiddleAfrica: the Proto-Sahara, and practiced a culture andcivilization –as typified by the rock art in theregion--similar to that of the C-Group people. Belowwe discover the ultimate objective of the Kushite forthe soul to become pure or white.

If this is correct in this interpretation of theKametian-Sumerian- Kushite-Dravidian view of man’ssoul it should be present in the languages of thesepeople. To test this hypothesis we will discuss theculture terms from these languages related to the term‘soul’.

In most of these languages the basic ideasabout purity and the soul is indicated by two wordsba/pa and or bo/po, with the possible addition of an /l / or /r/ as a final element to these monosyllabicterms.

We learn from the seals of the Dravidian speakingHarappans that they sought righteousness and aspotlessly pure mind, for purity of mind was the sinequo non for happiness within. You can find out moreabout Harappan religion and writing at the followingsites:http://olmec98,net/Indus.html

http://olmec98,net/grammar1.pdf

http://olmec98.net/IndusInspiration.pdf

Tolkappiyam makes it clear that in Tamil pa(l),denoted Karma. In Sangam times pal was considered thesum and the consequences of a person’s action, i.e.,his Fate or destiny. Tiruvallur used pal to denoteFate or the Law of Nature. K. Appadurai, in the Mindand Thoughts of Tiruvallur, noted that pal in itsexternal form is the veda, or word of God that makeseverything perfect, undying, everlasting and thatforever grows, and is growing internal Bliss. The factthat pal represents that undying and perfect aspect ofman corresponds to Loga’s interpretation of theKushite view of the soul reflected that this aspect ofman was both eternal and perfect.

In Dravidian we also find that in addition to palmeaning “Fate”, it also meant distribution, while palain Tamil means ‘many and diverse’.The Tamil concept of pal corresponds to that ofthe Sumerians. In Sumerian we find the word bar . Barhas several meanings including ‘soul’ and ‘white’.Theview here that the bar is both the soul and alsosomething that is white or pure corresponds favorablyto pal the Tamil conception of that aspect of manwhich is both everlasting and pure.

The Dravidians and Mande people who founded theShang and Xia civilizations, respectively in China,also took the concept that the soul was pure to theMongoloid Chinese people. We know very little aboutthe sounds of ancient Chinese because Ancient Chinesewas different from Old Chinese and Middle Chinese andthe modern Chinese dialects. (Ramsey 1987, pp.137-138)This results from the fact that the Chinese dynastieswere founded by diverse ethnic groups e.g., Xia andShang li (i.e., Black Shang) were founded by Dravidianand Manding speakers. Shang-Yin was founded byclassical mongoloids, and the Zhou by the contemporaryChinese. ) This explains the difference inpronunciation for Ancient Chinese spoken by the Xiaand Shang peoples who were Africans and Dravidiansformerly belonging to the C-Group people of MiddleAfrica, and Old and Middle Chinese or a variant thereof, which was probably spoken by the Zhou and laterMongoloid Chinese people. See:

http://olmec98.net/xia.htm

http://www.olmec98.net/DRAVIDIANS.html

http://olmec982.net/blshang2.htm

http://clyde.winters.tripod.com/junezine/id1.html

The Shang characters compare favorably to the ancientProto- Saharan script used by the Harappans in theIndus Valley and the Manding script used in theancient Sahara and Crete . Winters (1985c) outlinedthe spread of the Proto-Saharan script to Harappa, andthroughout Saharan Africa and Asia by the Dravidiansand Manding.

http://olmec98.net/anwrite.htm

Evidence of Chinese writing first appears around 2000B.C. as pottery marks. The shell-and-bone charactersrepresented writing they were not pictures. The Shangsymbols compare favorably with ancient Mandingsymbols.

In Chinese the term for ‘white’ is bai, while theterm for ‘soul’ is bo. Because the pronounciation ofChinese has changed over the centuries because of thefrequent conquest of the ‘country’ by diverse peoplesince the fall of the Xia and Shang civilizationsChinese researchers have developed many theories toexplain the origin of bai in Chinese for the termswhite (and soul). Some scholars believe that bai , mayhave got its meaning for white, from bo ‘soul’,through the idea that soul, represents emptiness . Ibelieve that this view for the origin of bai , may bewrong. This results from the fact that many peoplehave attempted to use bai, in relation to itsassociation with humans and ethnic groups to describethese people as literally white. Thus they maytranslate bai ren as “white men/man”.

During Zhou, times many Dravidians (Shang) andXia (Mande) people were sacrificed by the MongoloidChinese. Theses people were later called li Qiang‘Black Qiang’ by the Zhou. In many of the oral boneinscriptions of the Zhou we see the phrase bai Qiang,some Chinese researchers have translated this phraseas “white Qiang”. This interpretation is probablywrong. The fact that bai, is related to ‘soul’ and‘white’ suggest that bai Qiang, may be interpreted as“holy Qiang” or “Pure Qiang”, in reference to thesacrifice of Qiang religious men during Zhou rituals.

This belief in sacrificing Qiang (Dravidians andMande) by the Zhou to obtain blessing from their gods,may correspond to the popularity during the lated 19thCentury and first half of the 20th Century of burningand lynching blacks by the KKK as a form of ritualsacrifice of Blacks to purify the white racists of theAmerican South and Midwest. This suggest that just asbar in Sumerian meant both ‘soul’ and ‘white’, bai andbo had similar meanings because they entered theChinese language via the Dravidians and Mande whofounded Chinese civilization.

The view that the soul is pure, appears to havealso been the belief of the Olmec people. The Olmecpeople of Mexico are considered to be the “MotherCivilization” of all Meso-American civilizations. TheOlmec called themselves Xi (Shi), they spoke alanguage similar to Malinke-Bambara which is a memberof the Mande family of languages. It is interesting tonote that the symbol for bai in Chinese, is a box.

Among the Olmec the box shaped symbol is pronounced po‘pure, superlative of white and clean’, just as in theMande languages. Among the Olmec the term bo meant ‘spirit, principal of life, great, moral gradeur andghost’. The identification of the Olmec representationof ‘white, pure and spirit (which may denote an aspectof man akin to soul)’ as po/ bo highlights Loga’sidentification of the Kushite concept of this aspectof man as both the soul and purity/ white.

In conclusion, although their are differentcontemporary pronunciations ba/pa and bo/po , alongwith the symbols used to represent these words inChinese and Olmec writing, they have the same meaningand shape. This suggest a genetic relationship betweenthe idea of the soul as pure among theKametians-Dravidians-Olmecs-Mande-Sumerians. Thepresent pronunciation of the Chinese symbols probablyhas little relationship to the ancient pronunciationof Chinese spoken in Xia and Shang times when thesecharacters were first used, but the recovery of theactual meaning of these words from looking at Olmecand Tamil, make it clear that Chinese bai did not comefrom emptiness, it obtained its meaning from therecognition that bo represents the soul’s migration toattain purity.

This cognation of specialized terms forsoul, and white; and the writing systems supports theproposed Dravidian and Manding migration andsettlement of ancient Sumer, Mexico , China during Xiatimes and the Indus Valley. It was in these diversegeographical areas that the Kushites left theirrecognition that the soul is pure.

To understand the Nubian Kametian Sumerian and Dravidian (NKSD) civilization you have to understand that Afrocentric researchers are falsificationist. We either confirm or disconfirm a theory.

Linguistic evidence suggest that their is a Sumero- Tamil connection. Yet Eurocentrists reject this evidence without comment and counter eduttukkaadu (evidences). This makes their discussion of ancient history in my opinion untrue.

I am a product of Western Civilization. As a result, I was indoctrinated from an early age via TV and books that blacks were inferior. Although I was provided this indoctrination many adults during my socialization and induction into the community in which I grew up in , on the Southside of Chicago (i.e., 47th and Evans) taught me at an early age that Blacks were the founders of civilization based on their reading of the Bible, and the story about the Children of Ham.

As a result, when I undertook the acquisition of abstract sign systems during my forming schooling/instruction I had already acquired a metacognition (awareness of your own thinking) that filtered the biasteachings out of me during my years of schooling. I knew who I was based on the truth of the ancient model of history.

Science is hypothesis testing. We either confirm a theory or disconfirm a theory based on eduttukkaadu. A true scientist would never dispute a theory withoutoffering counter eduttukkaadu in support of the counter hypothesis, but Eurocentric researchers get away with this unscientific attack on the ideas ofBlacks, Native Americans and Asians everyday due to Eurocentrism.

Science goes out the window when theories are advocated by researchers that are not accepted by the Academe. We like to believe that schooling broadans our knowledge base and makes us wiser but this is not the case.

Schooling provides an environment that constructs the cognitive structures, we use to interpret our environment. If that environment teaching us falsehood, we will learn untruths instead of the Truth. This results from the fact that the growth of the mind is strongly influenced by the cultural sign system in which we live. It is the sign system presented via culture that provides first the child, and later the sdult the psychological tools to interpret the world.

To understand the NKSD cultures it requires more that one's racial status and being. Being a African African American or Dravidian will not gain you entry into understanding these cultures. You can only understand these cultures if you find cognitive and psychological engagement with the study of ancient history based on the Truth covering law, of the Ancient Model of History.

Cognitive engagement is an internal indicator. These indicators are process, recognition and desire.Firstly, cognitive engagement requires that you learn how to process information from a self-based approach. This information is processed both by neurological processes, genetics and the mind. The neurogic system helps us understand the mechanics behind our learning.

It makes clear the processes involved in thinking. The mind allows us to interpret knowledge. We don't know where this mind is, but we do know that it has a physical and a meta-physical base. The physical mind is structure by or experiences that formrepresentations or schmata to interpret the experiences we have had and explain what we find inthe environment.

The mind is also metaphysical. This part of the mind helps us to find information and answers to the questions we may have about phenomenon through ourdreams. ( I can not number the times I went to bed with a question about ancient history that was answered in a dreamthat directed me to sources / evidence to support my inquiry.)

Seeking truth is also genetic. We often discuss the genes and how they make us unique. But no one really discusses the possibility that a genetic memoryalso exist. This genetic memory would consist of the memories we obtain from our both our parents up to the time of our birth, and the memories of our parentsparents , and so on up tothe time of their birth. This memory may even go back to the first human ancestors. This genetic memory would allow us to tap into thememories of our ancestors.

The second feature of cognitive engagement in our quest for the Truth is recognition. Recognition, simply refers to the way you think, learn and processinformation. Your ability to find Truth will result from three factors, a) your ability to access genetic based knowledge; b) interactions with known knowledge( via multiple intelligences); and c) desire to know the Truth.

A good example of accessing the Truth genetically, was made clear by a Western scholar who said he did not understand Greek philosophy until he studied Ethiopian civilization. He even claimed that he formerly may have been an Ethiopian. A Eurocentric scholar would belittle the idea expressed by this scholar, but in reality, maybe he was able to access knowledge relating to the Ethiopians from his genetic memory from his ancestors who may have lived in Ethiopia, because he kept himself open to Truth and Truth came his way.

Finally, to complete your quest for cognitive engagement the heuristic used for task analysis and completion must include a self-monitoring process guided by Truth Seeking based on the Ancient Model of History.

Psychological engagement is both an internal and external indicator used to interpret the truth. You need psychological engagement of the NKSD culture to understand the phenomenon. Psychological engagement has three parts 1)identification with an intellectual school of thought ( in this case the Ancient Model of History); a sense of belonging and connection to a group; and 3) a positive relationship with teachers and peers.

It is easy to find identification with a researchmodel, but finding a sense of belonging and positive relationship with teachers is more difficult. You mustlove yourself and your ethnic group before you can use the ancient model of history to discovery aspects of the past. Yet, you can not be racist. You have to recognize that there is one mankind, eventhough we have different colors, because we all came from God. Finding teachers is also difficult. It is hard to find teachers for the study of NKSD at Universities and Colleges because most of the faculty members atthese institutions maintain the status quo. As a result, your teachers will be scholars who are outside the Academe. Scholars who provide the necessary evidences to support and test their hypotheses.

In summary, Truth seeking is the result of cognitive and psychological engagement along with socializing agents who provide us with the schemata we use to recognize Truth in our research. Truth is like beauty, it is only recognized by the eyes of thebeholder of what ever one believes to be true, and interpreted via the Model of History you chose to understand the past.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Kohl did not mention the red-and-black ware. This ceramic style was found at NKSD sites and is discussed by Singh and Andersson.

Rawlinson was convinced that there was a relationship between the Sumerians and Africans. As a result he used two African languages: oneSemitic and the other Cushitic to decipher the cuneiform writing. Rawlinson was sure that the ancient Nubians and Puntites founded Mesopotamian civilization.(1)

The Sumerians came from the Sahara before it became a desert. Affinities exist between Nubia ware and pottery from Ennedi and Tibesti.

These Saharan people were round-headed ancient Mediterranean type. They were often referred to as Cafsa or Capsians; a group of people not devoid of negroid characteristics according to J Desanges.(11) Wyatt MacGaffey, claims that the term "Mediterranean" is an anthropological euphemism for "Negro".

The boats of the Saharan people are similar to those found on ancient engravings of boats in Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley. Many of the boats found in the eastern desert of Egypt and among the Red Sea Hills show affinities to Mesopotamian models.

S.N. Kramer in The Sumerians, claimed that Makan was Egypt, Mekluhha was Nubia-Punt, and the Indus Valley was Dilmun. Today Dilmun is believed to be found near Arabia. But the archaeological evidence suggest that the Indus Valley which was settled by Dravidian speakers was the source of the lapis lazuli , which made Dilmun famous .(2)

Archaeological research has confirmed that cultural interaction existed between the contemporary civilizations of the 4th and 3rd millenia B.C. Extensive trade routes connected the Proto-Dravidians of the Indus Valley, with African people in Egypto-Nubia, and the Elamites and Sumerians. P. Kohl discovered that vessels from IVBI worshop at Tepe Yahya, have a uniform shape and design. Vessels sharing this style aredistributed from Soviet Uzbekistan to the Indus Valley, and Sumerian, Elamite and Egyptian sites. (2) In addition, we find common arrowheads at Harappan sites, and sites in Iran, Egypt, Minoan Crete and Heladic Greece.

It appears that the locus for this distribution of cultural traditions and technology was the Saharan-Nubian zone or Kush. This would explain why the Sumerians and Elamites often referred to themselves as "ksh". For example the ancient Sumerians called their dynasty "Kish". The words "kish", "kesh" and "kush" were also names for ancient Nubia-Sudan.

The Elamites also came from Kush. According to the classical writer Strabo, Susa the centre of the Elamite civilization was founded by Tithonus, king of Kush.

B.B. Lal has shown conclusively that the Dravidians came from Nubia and were related to the C-Group people who founded the Kerma dynasty.(3) They both used a common black-and-red ware (BRW) which Lal found was analogous to ceramics used by the megalithic people in India who also used analogous pottery signs identical to those found in the corpus of Indus Valley writing. (4)

Singh believes that this pottery spread from Nubia, through Mesopotamia and Iran southward into India.(5) The earliest examples of this BRW date to the Amratian period (c4000-3500 B.C.).

This same BRW was found at the lowest levels of Harappan sites at Lothal and Rangpur. After 1700 B.C. This ceramic tradition spread southward intomegalithic India.(6) It is also found in Uzbekistan and China. (12)

Dilmun was an important source of lapis lazuli. If the Indus Valley civilization was Dilmun as hypothesized by Kramer, it would explain the control of the Harappans/ or Dilmunites of this important metal.

The Indus Valley people spoke a Dravidian language.(7) The Harappans controlled the lazurite region of Badakhshan, and the routes to the tin and copper fields of central Asia.(8)

The major city of the Harappans/Dilmunites in the lapis lazuli region was Shortughai. Francefort believes that many lapis lazuli works were transported to Iran and Mesopotamia from Shortughai.(9) The BRW at Shortughai is typically Harappan.

When we put all of this evidence together we must agree that there is some historical evidence for a connection between the NKSD people. These people used similar arrow heads, red-and-black pottery, and intercultural vessels.This shows the common culture of these people.

Footnotes

(1)C.B. Rawlinson, "Notes on the early history of Babylon", Jour. Royal Asiatic Society (First Series) 15, p.230.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I believe that the Sumerians, Harappans, Elamites and Manding speaking people all came from an ancient civilization that formerly existed in the ancient Sahara, of middle Africa.

The Fertile Saharan Crescent is an arc shaped series of highland regions in the Saharan zone of Africa. The Saharan zone isbounded on the north by the Atlas mountains, the Atlantic Ocean in the West, the tropical rain forest in the south and the RedSea in the East. It was here that the ancestors of the founders of the river valley civilizations in Africa, the Middle East, Chinaand Indus Valley developed their highly organized and technological societies (Winters 1983a, 1985b).

The discovery of Intercultural style vessels from Susa (in Iran),Sumerian, Egyptian and Indus Valley sites suggest a sharedideological identity among these people . In fact the appearance of shared iconographic symbols and beliefs within diverse areas suggest cultural and ethnic unity among the people practicing these cultures. The common naturalistic motifs shared by the major civilizations include, writing (symbols), combatant snakes , the scorpion, bull and etc. This evidence of cultural unity is explained by the origin of these people in the Proto-Sahara.

The Proto-Saharans similar terms for writing. In general the term for writing was formed by the labial stops /p/ and /b/. For example:

In Egyptian we have several terms for write 0 ss #, 0 zs # , and 0 ssw #. During the Old Kingdom writing was referred to as 0iht # .

The Egyptian term for writing 0 ssw # is analogous to the Mande terms 0 sewe # or 0 sebe # 'writing, trace, design'. InDravidian among other terms we have rasu 'write', and shu 'writing' in Sumerian. The Egyptian term 0 zs # is also closelyrelated to Sumerian 0 shu #.

Writing systems among African people were mainly devised for two purposes. Firstly, to help merchants keep records on thebusiness venture they made. Secondly, the Proto-Saharan script was also used to preserve religious doctrines or writeobituaries.

The scarcity of documents, written for historical preservation among ancient African groups resulted from the fact that the keeping of history, was usually left in the hands of traditional (oral) historians. These historians memorized the histories of their nation and people for future recitation before members of their respective communities. This oral history was often accompanied by music or delivered in poetic verse and remains the premier source for the history of most African nations even today.

It is obvious that the first inscriptions were engraved in stone by the Proto-Saharans , or a stylus was used to engrave wet clay. The use of the stylus or stick to engrave clay is most evident in the pottery marks found on the pottery excavated at many ancient sites which possess similar symbols impressed on the pottery.

This view is supported by the fact that the term for writing in Dravidian and Egyptian include the consonants /l/, /r/ or /d/.

A "u", is usually attached to the initial consonants (Winters 1985b). For example:

Sumerian ru, shuElamite taluDravidian carruEgyptian drf

These terms agree with the Manding terms for excavate or hollow out 0 du #, 0 do #, 0 kulu #, 0 tura #, etc. The Sumerian term for writing was 0 du #. This show that the Proto-Saharan term for writing denoted the creation of impressions on wet clay and hard rock.

The origin of writing among the Proto-Saharans as an activity involving the engraving of stone is most evident in the Egyptianlanguage. This hypothesis is supported by the Egyptian words 0 m(w)dt #. The term 0 md t # means both '(sculptor's) chisel'and 'papyrus-roll, book'. The multiple meanings of 0 md t # makes it clear that the Egyptian, and probably other descendants of the Proto-Saharans saw a relationship between engraving stone and the creation of books.

Other Egyptian lexical items also support the important role Proto-Saharans saw in engraving rocks, and writing. In addition to 0md t # we have, 0 hti # 'carve, sculpture' and 0 iht # 'writing'. The fact that iht is an Old Kingdom term for writing, almost identical to hti, is further evidence that writing involved the engraving of stone.

The ancient Proto-Saharan settlers of of Asia and Africa, as their ancestors in the Fertile African Crescent used the term Ko to denote a rock, stone, envoy and God. Ko, may have been a variation of the word Kos "horned ram". The ram among the dwellers of the Fertile African Crescent was the primordial symbol of the Deity who was usually called: Amma, Amon/Amun, Amen and etc. The earliest representation of this deity are found in the Sahara which predate the worship of Amon-Ra in Egypt by 1000 years. Also, an unexcavated ram headed sphinx much older than the Egyptian sphinx, believed to be a rock formation, is presently situated at Siwa, in the Eastern Desert.

Due to the fact that Ko, in the languages spoken by the Proto-Saharans meant 'stone', made it natural for this term to symbolizeGod, since the Deity represents both stability and power. Moreover since the Fertile African Crescent and later the Carpathian Basin were settled during a Golden Age, characterized by stability and reason, gave the term Ko a double meaning among the Proto-Saharans 1) stability and 2) power, God.

In 1989 I compared the Mande (Bambara-Malinke), and Tamil languages to use glottochronology to determine the date of separation for these languages. Below are a few of the cognates.

ENGLISH SUMERIAN MANDING TAMIL

chief kal,kala kele-tigi gasa(n)

field gan ga kalan

eye(l) igi akki

eye(2) ini,en nya kan

arrow kak kala kakam

granary kur k'ur-k'ur kutir

road sila sila caalai

father pap pa appan

lord manus mansa mannan

male mu moko maakkal

to recite sid siti

to buy sa sa cel

grain se se

seed gen ge 'to sprout'

The lexical evidence above supported the hypothesis that a genetic relationship exist between the Mande language which is a member of the Niger-Congo family , Tamil (Dravidian), and Sumerian. This linguistic data illustrates that a common cultural macrostructure is shared by these speakers which subsequently evolved along separate lines.

Given this genetic unity of these languages I call this group of Paleo-African languages situated in Africa and Asia B(lack) Af(rican), S(umerian, Draa(vidian), (E)lam: or Bafsudraalam subset of the Proto-Saharan Superset of languages.(Winters 1989)

The theory of borrowing in ancient time can not account for these morphological, lexicological and phonetic correspondences between Dravidian , Elamite, Egyptian, Manding and Sumerian, because of geographical discontinuity. This cognition illustrates a genetic relationship between the Bafsudraalam subset of the Proto-Saharan family of languages.

In Winters (l989) after a comparison of 100 lexical items from Manding and Dravidian indicated a cognate rate of 70 to 75 percent . The retention rate corresponds to a minimum separation of 1.18 millennia.

Using the standard rates of retention for glottochronology, the rate for corresponding Manding, Sumerian and Tamil terms together is 50 percent retention rate, and suggest a minimum length of separation of 2.29 millennia for the group as a whole.

But when we compare Manding-Sumerian the retention rate was 70 percent or a minimum length of separation of 1.18 millennia. A comparison of Sumerian-Tamil corresponds to a 57 percent retention rate or a minimum separation of 1.50 millennia.

The length of separations for these languages are far too recent. Formerly I believed that Sumerian had been absorbed by the Akkadian language much earlier then 2.29 millennia ago. I was wrong Sachs (1976) proved that Sumerian was still in use by the first century C.E. The fact that the retention rate for Sumerian and Mande is 1.18 millennia corresponds to the date for the end of Sumerian writing in Mesopotamia.